Leprosy disappeared in Europe when some big Tuberculosis epidemics came. People with Leprosy got infected quickly and died. Does is make sense to blame their dead on just one of the two diseases?
You can take any of the factors which are weakening bees away to solve the problem. Best would be to reduce all of them, but neonics are the only factor that can be reduced easily.
Because of relativity this long-term gravitational effect has to move linearly with the objects through space, so it would kind of wobble with the galaxies when they moving relative to each other. When the galaxies collide the past gravitational effect would keep moving linearly.
Objects of all sizes would have this effect. But since planets moves around stars and stars don't move straight for long either the gravity can not build up over a long time, as it can on the scale of galaxies.
If the dark matter's w value would become similar to ours it would suddenly appear in our 3-dimensional space. Since we never observed it the w value might be fixed. For example this could be galaxies in parallel universes. They would feel each others gravity and drag each other along with ech other, but otherwise they are invisible to each other.
Lets take the price of 4.8$=480 cent per HCF. 1HCF=748 Gallons. 480/748 = 0.65 cents per gallon. How do you come to these high numbers?
I think it does not matter so much that you take a bit longer that way. He can make plans for the rest of the company with that estimate, so it allows everyone else to make better use of their time, and it brings things into order.
At least that is what I think.
But it is hard to imagine a star with the whole flux of the quarter moon, that must be an extremely bright tiny spot, maybe like a laser.
It would be about as bright as a quarter moon.
I wonder what that means. Is the light density the same as of a quarter moon, or is the total amount of light the same? If it is the first, is this really that different for a quarter moon and a full moon?
I've heard it said that our our universe is definitely not the inside of a black hole but I have never heard the reasoning for that claim beyond the "maths says it's a singularity". As with a black hole, light cannot escape our visible universe and the inflationary period embedded in the BBT could be interpreted as the initial collapse into a black hole, ie: I like to speculate that it's black holes all the way down (and up, sideways, etc).
Damn, that is what I am also wondering about. Would be really nice to see a good explanation for that.
I mean there must be some relation between the singularity that a black hole is and the singularity at the big bang. In one case the mass collapses and in the other one it inflates and forms a universe. But what is the difference, or isn't there any, and it is just looking at it from outside and from inside?
Below the article here is a link to an article about a theory related to that.. The theory is that the universe is at the surface of a 4-dimensional black hole, which would explain these things. Though I still don't know why it isn't just a 3-dimensional black hole.
The big bang model is an interpolation backwards in time from our current world. It shows how things must have been, but at the singularity it stops making sense. I think this interpolation is missing something important, something that we don't know about yet.
Anything we know, have known and are able to know takes place after the big bang, thus asking what came before it is a question we cannot really answer.
But there could have been something, right? What was there is just more of a philosophical than a scientific question.